[erlang-questions] Literal support for unary (1#XXXXXX...)

[Masklinn]

On 2013-06-02, at 21:22 , Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
> Could we extend the # integer syntax to support base 1? It would be cool if
> 1#11111111 worked, instead of doing this:
> 
> $ erl
> Erlang R15B03 (erts-5.9.3.1) [source] [64-bit] [smp:2:2] [async-threads:0]
> [hipe] [kernel-poll:false] [dtrace]
> 
> Eshell V5.9.3.1  (abort with ^G)
> 1> 2#1000.
> 8
> 2> 1#11111111.
> * 1: illegal base '1'
> 2> #11111111.
> * 1: syntax error before: 11111111
> 
> To be sure, base 1 isn't used that often in practice. But neither is base
> 3, 13, or 37, so it seems a little strange why the range of base literals
> is [2, 36]. If we apply the principle of "least surprise", I think it would
> be a good idea to also accept base 1.

Why would base1 be limited to the tally mark "1" though? Technically any
symbol can be used as the tally mark.